Yeah, I noticed that. Do I really need to repeat myself again?
quote
Originally posted by Boostdreamer:
I can't help but notice that you have not bothered to address any of the insults posted here so I'm not really sure why I would need to impress you with my own actions. The other members who have posted in this thread are listening.
Nurb is aware of how I feel about the way he addresses people.
Wichita just likes getting everyone's goat.
And I've never asked you or anyone else to "impress" me. Just do what you feel is right the next time Stan starts a thread. I won't need to PM you as they're not terribly difficult to find.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 03-30-2014).]
Nurb is aware of how I feel about the way he addresses people.
Wichita just likes getting everyone's goat.
And I've never asked you or anyone else to "impress" me. Just do what you feel is right the next time Stan starts a thread. I won't need to PM you as they're not terribly difficult to find.
You have asked several time for me to defend Doni and call Stan out and you ask that I do what is right in the future. I have asked you to do what is right in THIS thread right now. You choose to make excuses. Is this an example of the hipocricy that was mentioned earlier? Seems like it to me.
I have asked you to do what is right in THIS thread right now. You choose to make excuses. Is this an example of the hipocricy that was mentioned earlier? Seems like it to me.
I'm not going to hold your hand after you post opinions about a Hollywood movie that invite dissent. What is it you want from me?
For the third time...
quote
Originally posted by Patrick:
I'm not in favor of personal insults directed at anyone here for any reason.
In regards to religious discussions, is there ever any other possible reason for attacking?
When you have a God up the butt problem you need no reason, you are entitled.
Another thing , this is the internet. Allows cowards to be brave. The same people with the same urges to attack would not do so in person. It is because of this that I don't sweat most attacks. I am confident in person I would never have to suffer them.
Are you saying that you hold hate in your heart for the Christian members of this forum? What have any of these members done to you? Are you punishing them for what others have done?
What good has come from your Christian bashing on this forum? What will it take to bring it to an end?
No i dont. And repeating a question wont get a 2nd answer. It has been answered.
Why do people keep bringing up the Crusades, when far more people were killed in the name of *no religion* than have been killed in the name of Christianity?
.
Because they have in the name of *faith* The blood christian crusades are just one example of the hypocrisy and death. Not the only one of course, and they are all added up when i say 'due to faith'. It just happened to be about christianity here today.
When you have a God up the butt problem you need no reason, you are entitled.
Another thing , this is the internet. Allows cowards to be brave. The same people with the same urges to attack would not do so in person. It is because of this that I don't sweat most attacks. I am confident in person I would never have to suffer them.
If you mean me, id call you a moron to your face if you were one. I could care less what a person thinks of me in person either.
So two dogs cannot reproduce enough to fill the world with dogs but puddles of chemical goo can produce ALL THE LIFE FORMS ON THE PLANET? That, my friend, is a great statement of faith in itself!
Well, back to the topic, I think I'll go see Noah. Now that I know it's not just a biblical retelling, which I was honestly hoping for. I was hoping for it to be given the same treatment as Greek or Roman mythology.
Speaking of artistic liberty and Greek mythology, Immortals took more than Clash ever did. I think that one annoyed pretty much everyone. Although I found it an enjoyable movie.
Can you not see the hypocrisy of the last sentence I quoted of you? I know "azzhat" came a rolling off your keyboard.
And what of yours by calling me out and COMPLETELY ignoring the topic at hand? You quoted me and addressed me. I was speaking in generalities toward anyone and everyone who finds pleasure in the degradation of others. When insults beget insults, why is the blame placed on the reactionary one? I ask YOU, will you be a part of the problem or part of the solution?
[This message has been edited by Boostdreamer (edited 03-31-2014).]
My knowledge of the flood not happening comes from understanding both how rain works and how reproduction works in a species. 2 of each animal doesn't allow for a sufficient repopulation density and rain water doesn't materialize in the air, it comes from other sources. Therefore it is scientifically impossible, therefore it didn't happen. If you'd like to ignore that, it's fine. But you can't reduce science because the Bible says differently. They aren't always mutually exclusive, but sometimes they are.
Edit: I don't want you to have doubt. I think religion is good for many people. I will stop now. Have a good day.
There is geological evidence of a global flood, that interestingly coincides with the last rotational axis shift of the planet. The are also flood stories in most religions.
And before you ask for links, do your own homework.
The screenplay in the movie IS a fictional story. I completely agree. You will not find that series of events in any text that could ever be debated as being historical.
Now if you choose to believe that the Bible is also fictional, that is fine that you think that. Just please have enough respect for others to state it as your opinion. That's all I'm trying to say.
Ah the bible belt, I miss being a resident in TN so much, NOT. You can't swing a dead cat in TN without hitting a church. its a fkn movie that's all it is and I am sure at the end of the dam thing if you had stayed that long to watch the credits there is a disclaimer stating that the characters in the movie are fictional and do not represent anyone alive or dead. But that wasn't good enough for those bible thumpers in the bible belt,
But it wasn't what the BIBLE says happened so you got to get all bent out of shape about it, give me a brake. no movie is completely correct of anything even their own stories they start out to be.
Because they have in the name of *faith* The blood christian crusades are just one example of the hypocrisy and death. Not the only one of course, and they are all added up when i say 'due to faith'. It just happened to be about christianity here today.
And modern Christians CONTINUE to agree that those actions were not a result of Jesus' teachings. If you still haven't gotten the picture, I FORMALLY DENOUNCE THE CRUSADES! Can we move on to why you need to attack the members here that were generations away from even being born at that time?
Ah the bible belt, I miss being a resident in TN so much, NOT. You can't swing a dead cat in TN without hitting a church. its a fkn movie that's all it is and I am sure at the end of the dam thing if you had stayed that long to watch the credits there is a disclaimer stating that the characters in the movie are fictional and do not represent anyone alive or dead. But that wasn't good enough for those bible thumpers in the bible belt,
But it wasn't what the BIBLE says happened so you got to get all bent out of shape about it, give me a brake. no movie is completely correct of anything even their own stories they start out to be.
Steve
So saying I didn't like the move means I'm bent out of shape? The thread has taken a different turn and you have been left behind. I said the same thing about the Lone Ranger movie. Was I bent out of shape for that opinion also? Neither one followed the characters as I have come to know and love them. That's pretty much all I said about both movies. Is it now bad form to dislike a movie? It is ok to bash members but taboo to dislike a movie? Tennessee does not miss you.
So saying I didn't like the move means I'm bent out of shape? The thread has taken a different turn and you have been left behind. I said the same thing about the Lone Ranger movie. Was I bent out of shape for that opinion also? Neither one followed the characters as I have come to know and love them. That's pretty much all I said about both movies. Is it now bad form to dislike a movie? It is ok to bash members but taboo to dislike a movie? Tennessee does not miss you.
Seems like you said a lot more than that.
quote
Originally posted by Boostdreamer:
They got the name of the main character right but pretty much used artistic license on the rest of the story. One thing that I did learn was that Noah's grandfather, Methuselah, was likely killed in the flood. I did the math and it works out. Although we don't have months and days for his birth and death, the years work.
The Thing from Fantastic Four could have seen his ancestors there. Yes, giant rock creatures that helped Noah build the ark.
They appeared to build the ark in a matter of months or a few years. Noah's son's didn't age and the youngest looked to be about 10 years old.
Noah almost didn't let himself or his family use the ark. It seemed he thought the ark was for the animals only.
Only one of Noah's sons had a wife. She entered the ark pregnant with twins and delivered them before they landed. Noah was about to kill them.
His son with the wife and twins built a raft and were going to leave the ark to keep Noah from killing the babies.
The "king" was able to climb the outside of the ark and bust in. The middle son hid him and cared for his wounds until he was well enough to fight Noah.
They had magic fire rocks.
All the animals were put into hybernation by the smoke from the magic rocks.
The forrest that supplied the wood for the ark sprang up in a matter of minutes because Noah planted a magic seed that was removed from the Garden of Eden.
Noah and his family didn't eat meat.
The window was in the side of the ark. The door was on the end of the ark.
They closed the door themselves.
They barely got inside before the waters rushed in.
God only spoke to Noah through visions in his dreams. He never got any specific instructions.
Its a dam movie, get a life outside the church.
Steve
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 03-31-2014).]
The movie NOAH is more of a sci-fi/fantasy retelling of the Biblical story. As such it strays FAR away from the story in the Bible.
Those who know and are expecting the "Bible story" will see all the latitude taken by the writers, and will probably not like it because "they got it all wrong". That's fair comment.
Those are completely ignorant of the Bible story will probably like it.
The same guys moaning "it's just a movie" sometimes get their panties in a bunch when a movie based on their favorite novel comes out. Again "the movie writers got it all wrong".
There is evidence of a "flood" in the black sea, where the ocean broke through and flooded that area (slow or fast is up for debate, but that isn't important here).
This seems more plausible, as the "world" was very small back then and people didn't know about places like the Americas. To say "the world flooded" was true.... THEIR world flooded.... ie... the Black Sea. And it makes for a great story, no doubt, one to be repeated over and over.... a "biblical event".
And to build an "ark"... well, yes, a raft/boat to move animals would be needed, as the water would rise in different locations and this would leave animals cut-off from reaching shore. Animals were important to people, and they needed to "rescue" all they could.
I am sure natives along the Mississippi River also though their world was flooded when the river spilled over the banks, and the same can be said for many nature disasters.
The movie NOAH is more of a sci-fi/fantasy retelling of the Biblical story. As such it strays FAR away from the story in the Bible.
Those who know and are expecting the "Bible story" will see all the latitude taken by the writers, and will probably not like it because "they got it all wrong". That's fair comment.
Those are completely ignorant of the Bible story will probably like it.
The same guys moaning "it's just a movie" sometimes get their panties in a bunch when a movie based on their favorite novel comes out. Again "the movie writers got it all wrong".
There is geological evidence of a global flood, that interestingly coincides with the last rotational axis shift of the planet. The are also flood stories in most religions.
And before you ask for links, do your own homework.
No, there isn't. I heavily studied geology in school, and have to look at geological surveys literally every day at work.
Any evidence for a global flood it mushed in like trying to put the wrong piece into a puzzle. The global flood is actually one of the largest reasons I went from a firm Believer to an atheist. I had to know geology too well to continue neglecting the data. I'm sorry.
There is evidence of a "flood" in the black sea, where the ocean broke through and flooded that area (slow or fast is up for debate, but that isn't important here).
This seems more plausible, as the "world" was very small back then and people didn't know about places like the Americas. To say "the world flooded" was true.... THEIR world flooded.... ie... the Black Sea. And it makes for a great story, no doubt, one to be repeated over and over.... a "biblical event".
And to build an "ark"... well, yes, a raft/boat to move animals would be needed, as the water would rise in different locations and this would leave animals cut-off from reaching shore. Animals were important to people, and they needed to "rescue" all they could.
I am sure natives along the Mississippi River also though their world was flooded when the river spilled over the banks, and the same can be said for many nature disasters.
Just saying....
There are these quacks who call themselves Christian Scientist who say they use Flood Geology to explain that the entire Earth was under water, except Noah's Floating Zoo.
Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology and paleontology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, cosmology, biology, geophysics and stratigraphy, and the scientific community considers it to be pseudoscience.
How the wickedness of the earth started in the Genesis Story:
"Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that thesons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose."
Basically the Sons of God went down to earth and started to pork the daughters of men. Yeah! I know it contradicts many of the teachings of the Bible, because Christians only believe in one son. But Genesis is the first book, so there you go.
I'm not going to hold your hand after you post opinions about a Hollywood movie that invite dissent. What is it you want from me?
Except the direction of the thread almost immediately veered from posting a differing opinion of the movie to attacking the person who started the thread, and his personal beliefs in general, as well of course, to all who have beliefs similar to that person.
Your 1st reply in the thread:
quote
So they fictionalized a work of fiction? Damn.
Nurb's 1st reply in the thread:
quote
He doesn't like fantasy movies perhaps?
quote
Why say anything?
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-31-2014).]
Check my original post. The one you cited was an answer to a question. How does giving my review of a movie constitute not having a life outside of church?
I also didn't say it was trash or not worthy of your viewing. I didn't ask anyone to agree with my opinion of the movie. I said it wasn't for me. Explain to me how these were unacceptable statements?
The movie NOAH is more of a sci-fi/fantasy retelling of the Biblical story. As such it strays FAR away from the story in the Bible.
Those who know and are expecting the "Bible story" will see all the latitude taken by the writers, and will probably not like it because "they got it all wrong". That's fair comment.
Those are completely ignorant of the Bible story will probably like it.
The same guys moaning "it's just a movie" sometimes get their panties in a bunch when a movie based on their favorite novel comes out. Again "the movie writers got it all wrong".
And what of yours by calling me out and COMPLETELY ignoring the topic at hand? You quoted me and addressed me. I was speaking in generalities toward anyone and everyone who finds pleasure in the degradation of others. When insults beget insults, why is the blame placed on the reactionary one? I ask YOU, will you be a part of the problem or part of the solution?
Heh? I just asked a question. No reason to yell. Enjoy your day.
Edit: It's just a movie. No plans to see it until it comes out in Beta. Carry on.
[This message has been edited by Tony Kania (edited 03-31-2014).]
Check my original post. The one you cited was an answer to a question. How does giving my review of a movie constitute not having a life outside of church?
You do understand, that those type comments in question aren't intended to actually do anything except to try to silence any religious discussion or activity?
There is evidence of a "flood" in the black sea, where the ocean broke through and flooded that area (slow or fast is up for debate, but that isn't important here).
This seems more plausible, as the "world" was very small back then and people didn't know about places like the Americas. To say "the world flooded" was true.... THEIR world flooded.... ie... the Black Sea. And it makes for a great story, no doubt, one to be repeated over and over.... a "biblical event".
And to build an "ark"... well, yes, a raft/boat to move animals would be needed, as the water would rise in different locations and this would leave animals cut-off from reaching shore. Animals were important to people, and they needed to "rescue" all they could.
I am sure natives along the Mississippi River also though their world was flooded when the river spilled over the banks, and the same can be said for many nature disasters.
Just saying....
Good post. I would counter with scientists tell us that at one time, all the continents were a single mass of land called Pangaea. Could it have been easier to flood all of the earth if it was all connected and centrally located? Maybe. Unsure if that makes a difference other than the scientific fact that the Moon pulls on the ocean and causes it to be deeper on that side of the Earth at the time. Perhaps, the Moon was over Pangaea and pulled more water over it.
I read Patrick's post as a light elbow jab with a grin, Nurb's post as a grumpy man who's ultimately harmless, but Wichita is just as confrontational and antisocial as always. I think he finds it hard to stay away. Maybe it makes him feel superior to do it.
He knows I think his posts on religion are largely inflammatory and uncalled for, so I'm done responding to each of his posts on the matter.
You do understand, that those type comments in question aren't intended to actually do anything except to try to silence any religious discussion or activity?
Of course, but the more they post the longer the thread lives. I don't mind showing how silly those comments are. I have yet to hear any of them make the first rational argument for why religion bashing is productive or why it should continue. Just a barrage of insults and deflection. Typical and telling about the posters.
Wichita is just as confrontational and antisocial as always. I think he finds it hard to stay away. Maybe it makes him feel superior to do it.
He knows I think his posts on religion are largely inflammatory and uncalled for.
There is a term for that. It is called trolling. Wichita is just a troll, never adding anything constructive, just wanting to destroy what he hates. I tend to skip over his comments as well. Nothing to gain there.
Good post. I would counter with scientists tell us that at one time, all the continents were a single mass of land called Pangaea. Could it have been easier to flood all of the earth if it was all connected and centrally located? Maybe. Unsure if that makes a difference other than the scientific fact that the Moon pulls on the ocean and causes it to be deeper on that side of the Earth at the time. Perhaps, the Moon was over Pangaea and pulled more water over it.
I thought you believed that the earth was roughly 6000 years old. Pangea refers to a much larger earth of around 4.5 billion years. Genuinely curious how both theories can exist (Pangea with young earth)?
Basically the Sons of God went down to earth and started to pork the daughters of men. Yeah! I know it contradicts many of the teachings of the Bible, because Christians only believe in one son. But Genesis is the first book, so there you go.
If I am a child of God and I am male, doesn't that make me a son of God? According to Biblical teachings, isn't God our HEAVENLY FATHER?
I only believe in one Son who lived a sinless life on Earth and died to pay the price of all sin. I certainly haven't come close to that.
I go to movies to be entertained. I have no idea if "Gravity" was completely accurate. Or The Flintstones...
And therefore you have the right to your opinion about the entertainment value of the movies. Just as I have that right. We both have the right to post our opinions on any movie.
As was pointed out, many people dislike movies because they do not follow the book close enough. That viewpoint does not indicate that those people are "crying" about a movie nor does it indicate that they have "no life outside of books".
In a similar way, I don't usually like "live" versions of music. When I'm trying to sing along with my favorite tunes, it is an interruption to the flow of my enjoyment when the arrangement is changed. It catches me off guard and I have to re-set my mind back into the song and try to pick it back up again when I find it familiar again.
I know "azzhat" came a rolling off your keyboard.
